Beyond the New Law

From Los Angeles welcome to the second in a series of three programs on the new Immigration Reform and Control Act known as Simpson good you know. I'm your host Richard comes out today we'll discuss one aspect of the new immigration law that has the protections against employee discrimination. The provisions in the law that protects prospective employees from discrimination by a potential employer due to citizenship status or national origin. Our guest today our three experts on this issue. First is Carlos de is director of the fair employment practices program for the Immigration and Naturalization Service or INS. Joining us is Francisco Garcia of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund or mull that. And our third guest is his whiskey nowness an attorney specializing in labor law with the Los Angeles firm of Taylor Roth and Bush. This is a new building with broadcasting from the studios of Pacifica station KPFA FM in Los Angeles funds for this program were provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The Ford Foundation and National Public Radio. In the first program of this three part series on the new immigration law we discussed the issue of

employer sanctions. The provisions in the law that make it illegal for employers to hire anyone who is not a citizen or who cannot prove that they are normalizing their status here in the US. Many people who are opposed to the new immigration legislation argue that employer sanctions would cause employers not to hire anyone who might appear who might appear either by the color of their skin or by their accent to be an illegal immigrant. It was charged that employer sanctions would lead to discrimination against U.S. citizens or persons who were in the process of becoming a citizen. As a result of this widespread concern Congress included certain anti-discrimination provisions in the new immigration law. The law makes it illegal for employers to discriminate based on citizenship status or alien status if the alleged victim has been granted asylum is a U.S. citizen a permanent resident alien refugee or newly legalising alien who has filed a notice of intent to become a U.S. citizen and will be going through all those categories during the next hour in our conversation here.

The the new law also exempts employers of three or fewer workers from these provisions. And finally the new law creates a special counsel in the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute any charges of job related discrimination against either aliens or U.S. citizens. Now what we hope to accomplish during this next hour is by the end of this program is to leave you with a very clear understanding of what protections you have against discrimination when you go to look for a job. And if you are an employer what your obligations are. To begin a discussion perhaps we should quickly review the provisions for employer sanctions. The rights and obligations of employers before getting into the issue of potential discrimination that might arise out of these sanctions. So first we turn to Colonel status of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Could you just help us start off this conversation by giving our audience a brief rundown on employer sanctions and what that means. Certainly it all started with the immigration reform Control Act the 1986 and part of the provision

renders it unlawful for a person or other entity after November the six one thousand ninety six. To hire or recruit or refer for a fee for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is not authorized by law to work in United States. So we have employers then who have to obey this law and in doing so they also have another process that they have to go through and that's a verification process that the paperwork process where the person that applies for a work indicates to the employer that he is authorized to work so he has to show the employer some documentation that is listed in a lot of the information under the Immigration Reform Act the employer then has to go through the verification process before they hire any person. Now they intentionally hire persons who are here without permission or are here unlawfully in the United States and not authorized to work in states in the United States and they might be violating the employer sanctions law.

I guess one of the first things I want to do with our panel today is to find out if we have agreement on the charge that there is a potential for discrimination because of this provision in the law. Do we all agree on that. Yes I agree. Yes it was a fundamental portion of this legislative package that we call Immigration Reform and Control Act that there be some civil rights protection for people who would become subject to the law's provisions. And we've seen in fact since undocumented cases in various parts of the country of people getting discharged getting disciplined for the most part people getting terminated from their from their work simply because of their citizenship status or of their their national origin status. That is something that the law seeks

to protect against and which was in fact a basic fundamental part of the legislative package. Let me oppose this question too. Francisco got a sea of MALDEF. This is a basic one of the basic questions what really constitutes discrimination in terms of why are these anti discrimination provisions. Why were they included in the law. First of all organizations like modifies Dorothy opposed any attempt to impose an employer sanctions on many grounds the most important voice which was a potential for discrimination. I think that now that they're going to pass we don't have to speak in terms of potential anymore in fact our worst fears are reality and we see the massive massive confusion of the type of employers. So that is innocent misapprehension of the law. In other cases employers are purposely using the law as a pretext to harass or dismiss workers in every area that we have office and indeed if you read the papers almost in every area nationwide there are problems with the implementation. Now the anti-discrimination

provisions were put into the law because civil rights organizations like moneth and others that represent minority groups consistently lobbied hard in Congress and said look there's going to be discrimination we have to have some provisions that act as a counterweight as a safeguard. And in order to really understand the kind of provisions we ended up with I think we ought to go into a little bit of history. In the debate the Senate was never an agreement to have a discrimination provisions in fact Senator Hart. The same Gary cheating heart that we now know was initially proposed as provisions but were defeated in the Senate in the house. Barney Frank a representative from Massachusetts had anti-discrimination provisions in his bill but because the Senate did not in the final hours the 11th hour there was a lot of movement a lot of backdoor backroom compromises and the end result was that the provisions we ended up with were very watered down in order for the Senate to accept a bill in order for these various people they would be meeting in back rooms to

to put a bill forward to push it forward and to get it all to maybe pass and what we ended up with was a package. It's actually very restrictive and provides very limited protections and nonetheless don't even address many of the problems that we're seeing already. Nevertheless organizations civil rights organizations labor organizations intend to use this law to its fullest. And in addition rely on other federal laws and other state labor laws in order to protect workers. The issue of what other laws people can use to protect themselves against discrimination is something I'd like to get into. But first I want to pose another question to his is do you notice or do you Francisco. If if I feel that I am. An aggrieved party if I feel that I've been discriminated against and I come to you. What advice would you have for me. I think one of the first things that has to be done is to because of the numerous exemptions and exceptions that are included in the law is that one has to determine if there's jurisdiction given the number of employees

involved of the employer to determine whether or not there are witnesses that kind of thing that has to be documented by the individual and it's important to for people to talk to someone immediately to write down whatever happened to list the names of any witnesses who may have been present when the acts occurred. And that's those are some of the initial steps that need to be taken immediately and maybe Frank has some additional ideas. Yes. You know unfortunately at this point as with with this part of the law as with sanctions and with legalization. What we have seen is really a history of bureaucratic bungling on the part of the INS of not being prepared of not conducting an adequate public education program on the part of the Justice Department they have not set up an office of the special counsel they have not appointed a special counsel regulations on this area of the law are not out. In fact the whole bureaucratic

infrastructure that's necessary in order to implement these provisions is nonexistent at this point all we have is an interim special counsel and in effect just a P.O. box in the Justice Department where people can write. In the meantime deadlines are passed and you only have 180 days to file a claim. What we suggest is to talk to the attorney immediately maad if is doing these kind of anti-discrimination claims for example to document a claim to send it to the special counsel. And in addition if a private attorney has a client like this or has a claim to document it and send it to model because we will be collecting all instances of discrimination in order to document them then we can talk a little later but there will be a geo report in terms of you know what is it the General Accounting Office or right General Accounting Office which will which is charged with studying the effects of sanctions and documenting any discrimination and reporting to Congress every year for the first three years. If I can just add to Frank's

last point there as a part of the law establishing that within three years of it's an accident there will be some sort of reconsideration of some of the bill's provisions and there will as part of that there will be reconsideration of these anti-discrimination provisions. And unless civil rights groups labor organizations and people involved in the process are asserting people's rights under this law unless they make it known to the GA Oh and to the Congress that in fact there is discrimination out there. And in fact to assert that the law is not strong enough it's possible that the provisions could be eliminated after a period of time. And therefore it's necessary to document any instance of discrimination that occurs. Carlos Diaz you've been named director of the fair employment practices program at the INS. And I think that finance is going to since I threw the ball in your court when he said that the INS is not really prepared for what is now

happening. How do you respond though. Thanks onesies go. We have to get into the know. I can understand what what he's referring to. We've also had concerns within our own in this organization about. The information not getting out sooner than it has. But with regard to the Special Counsel Office of what they do now have a new person in there who is the acting special counsel named Mary Mann. The Office of Special Counsel there for the under the Department of Justice. And they also have a proposed whether it's final now a complaint form an outline for people to use. And I've taken those from the Federal Register and made copies of them and have been providing them to people in all of our presentations but with regard to your first question about what is a fair employment practices program about here in the Western Region I'm not talking about any other immigration offices regions in the United States but here in the western region.

Commissioner Harold Ezell was became aware through through our reform forms that we were holding that there was a gap in the in covering the. Educational public awareness programs aimed at the employer in order to make them more aware of how to handle the employer sanctions and not do it in a way that would create problems for the employees who are the people who are eligible to apply for legalization who have not and don't have the proper documents yet and they want someone in the INS office here to be responsive to that. And we did it by publicizing it through various forms and presentations and through media and everything else in the behaviors and all that kind of stuff even though at this time there's only one person here though we have a structure set up where the fair employment coordinator will be at each of the immigration offices district offices like for instance. Sometimes he cosigned able to us on this Phoenix and there will be one in the sub office in Las Vegas and we have these people to be available to take complaints from people

who have been affected by what they believe is discrimination from an employer because they are not hired or they are if they're terminated or they're being asked for documents when they if they don't have them yet. And I've gotten a number of reports from people. Actually I can count only about 17 or 18 actual reports. I want to remember with this it was a Sears-Roebuck here in this area and that's an example of where an employer may not want to change company policy in the spirit of the law to take care of any of these kind of problems that come up in the workplace. So if I understand and understand you correctly the function of your office then is to collect complaints is that correct. Yes I I didn't finish explaining what what it what it amounts to I don't have any investigatory powers. I do not go to a business firm and investigate and look for evidence. I am a conciliator or an ombudsman. I take information from the people that are being affected

by the discrimination of various or the alleged discrimination. And then I talk to the employers and in the majority of the cases except with the exception of a couple of them I have found that the employer is has a misconception about how to apply employer sanctions they were zealously applying it. They're asking all of their employees for documentation when they don't have to have the ones that we were hired from 11 686 on before 11 686 they don't have to ask for documentation from those people. But when they do this they're saying that I'm going to be fair with everyone write all of my employees on ask for documentation of all of my employees U.S. citizens lawful permanent residents everybody. But what happens and I explained the employer is when you do that depending on the percentage of the workforce that might be Hispanic or some other minority. Then you're going to have those people who don't have the documents now who are going to apply for legalization and you're going to be terminating those people now you're going to have a percentage on minorities that you're going to be terminated and you open yourself up for discrimination. There's adverse impact involved here

and there's a kind of stuff that we're explaining to employers. I have a follow up question for you but first I want to remind our audience that we will be taking your a call and questions for our panel of guests here today. And you can call us collect and our number here is 8 1 8 9 8 5 5 7 3 5 that's 8 1 8 9 8 5 5 7 3 5 and we'll be taking your calls in about 15 minutes or so. It's OK for you to call us right now and get in line because as we found in our last program many many people from around the country had questions and we weren't able to fit in everyone so give us a ring if you want to join this conversation very soon 8 1 8 9 8 5 5 7 3 5 and you can call collect. My full of question to you today is a how much are you hearing from employers who say I don't understand the law. What am I supposed to do.

Are there is there still a lot of are there still a lot of employers out there who are ignorant or still don't understand what their obligations are. It's difficult to give you a number as to how many might be out there as so many employers might be out there that still don't understand what the employer sanctions is about. But I do get calls from businesses they're inquiring about other other information with regard to reform but at the time when they do call I also go into it with them about the anti discrimination provisions how are they applying this employer sanctions with regard to the employees they have now in the ones they're hiring and the ones that they don't even have to bother the ones who were hired after 11 6 prior to 11 686. But the the ones that are calling Well the employers. Are not the ones that are initiating the complaints it's the people themselves who are employed who have been calling me and I can give an example from one young woman who called me who works in the restaurant who had been being.

It was getting paid in cash for about three years and now the employer because he wanted to abide by the law one heard that occasion for employment. She told the employer if I do that means that I could just start working for you but I need to apply for legalization I need to show that I've been working for you for three years. The employer says I can't do that because I might be found in violation of the law because I've been paying your cash all this time and the employer ultimately told you if you don't sign this application I want to terminate you. So she calls if that woman in this instance she did not give me the name of the employer in the phone number to contact him I would have tried to talk to the employer about the employer being able to provide a letter of employment to this person and not fear the fact that the letter would be used against him because of confidentially confidential and law that is in effect. Everything would be guarded and wouldn't be given to any other agencies. OK that's one small case from that you go to a company like the most recent one in about three weeks ago. There is a company.

Someone copies the unknown they have about 52 offices it's a referral company. They refer people for employment to other businesses and they pay the employee the wages and take care of all the benefits and everything but in one company they actually place five hundred people. Well this company who is in the OA in the vitamin making business went in to an inventory phase they laid everybody off and he started hiring only so many of the 500 about 250 people. Then you have a young lady calling me saying Now the agency wants me to come up with documentation. And I said well why. Why do they ask for documentation now when you were working for him before and then you get into all these other things you have to do with employment. But it all turned out that I contacted the corporate office and I spoke to him about they even had attorneys at the time had reform information provided to him some time back. But I brought him up on something as simple as the special rule the September 1st date. And they weren't aware of all this. And as I started talking to him they realized that they would be able to work within the scope of what I was telling them. Excuse me. And

those are the kind examples. I can refer to just one other quick question. Given the potential it would seem that there's a great potential for discrimination in under these circumstances. How much manpower has the INS allotted to take care of these complaints. Well again you've got to realize that this Office of Special Counsel that has the authority they're the ones that are supposed to prepare their structure to address these kind of complaints here just in the western region at this time it's just myself with the with what I mentioned before structuring other positions in the district offices and mainly right now it's just myself and some of the staff that I have. But these are clerical people. OK so I mean that not to belabor the point. This isn't that sort of a rivalry between law and if in the end that's all that we do litigate against the INS. But it's an important point here in terms of the lack of education of it. The education campaign period by the INS because many in fact the

vast majority of the people for example who are green card holders who are protected by this law have already been harmed have already lost that protection because there was no educational program to inform them. In fact Mr Tay's concedes he's the one person in the entire region which includes several states dealing with this problem that you might have district personnel at a later date. It's good but it hasn't happened yet that this is a classic case of too little too late. In fact the employer information for the package for employers is still what the Government Printing Office. The preliminary information which was inadequate distributed but yet has it has include incorrect information and Mr. Taylor has mentioned that employers should not seek documentation of a person hired before November 6 that's a crucial point we have to protect what they call grandfather workers. They can't be asked for verification they can't be threatened with dismissal.

Yet the information provided by the INS says and I quote You can't you can do so if you like you can in the which it gives the employers this question. I understand the next package will be corrected. In any event let me talk about the Rick one of the requirements a very important acquirement I mentioned that the law was watered down quite a bit in fact it protects only four categories of workers those who are asylum. Those who are refugees and those who are permanent residents and those who will be temporary residents in the legalization provisions. The vast majority are permanent residents people that have green cards. Now in order to be protected you should file a Form with the INS card and intention intending citizen for that form. As far as I know it is not available they used to be a form the INS used in this regard. But that form is non existence of people can't even file this form. Secondly you have to apply for naturalization within six months of the date that the law was put in effect November 7th.

If you haven't done so then you're nor longer protected. Persons were not the public was I generally informed of this requirement in fact in the San Antonio office of the INS for example. They denied publicly that this requirement existed and just totally confused the matter. In fact most of the employee information that I just put out in fact all other information. The focus of it is to put the fear of God in employers and tell them what science is about. But I have yet to see one piece of written information about anti-discrimination. Mr. Taylor says that I would be the role of the special counsel yet the rule the law provides that I and this itself can bring a complaint if it knows of an employer who discriminated can actually initiate that complaint. And as far as I know INS is not generally informed of this requirement. There is no internal mechanism for ion as to begin the set of procedures to bring such complaints in any event my point is that much of the protection is limited as it might be initially has already been lost because there has been no public education and the affected persons or persons for which this law was passed was meant to protect will have

no rights to sue under this new immigration. A follow up question for you but first I want do want to remind our audience to join us. Call us by calling collect at 0 1 excuse me to check that is 0 8 1 8. 9 8 5 5 7 3 5 That's 0 8 1 8 9 8 5 5 7 3 5. And we'll take your calls collect and you can join us here in this discussion on the issue of employee discrimination. The follow up question for you Francisco's isn't discrimination already prohibited under Title 7 of the federal law. Isn't there protection already built into the law. Well there is anti-discrimination provisions under Title 7. See the reason that Congress thought it was a sort of passed separate protection of the immigration law was that historically Title 7 has not been an effective law to deal with discrimination in the context of immigration in the context of immigrants.

To give you an example Title 7 only recognizes national origin discrimination that means you can allege you were discriminated because you were Mexican-American for example for example but if you were legit you were discriminated because you have a green card in town just have and wouldn't recognize it. And also Title 7 only applied to large employers employers of 15 or more persons. And secondly didn't apply to seasonal workers. So the intent of current Congress was to broaden to expand that coverage. And the end result as I said has been only a very modest a very limited expansion. But now we know the law provides for some sort of discrimination claim for example. If you fall within the one of the four categories of workers the problem is that they added the requirements that you have to be an intending citizen and you have to file for naturalization. In addition in addition it only applies to workers that have been granted that status. It doesn't apply if you're an applicant for refugee status. If you are an applicant for legalization you actually have to have been granted that specific status. So most of the problems that we're seeing initially with along with grandfather workers for

example Rampal records are excluded from coverage unless they will qualify for legalization if they qualify for legalization there what we call the special rule workers with special rule workers are also excluded from coverage because they're not yet granted temporary status. So much of the initiative discrimination that we have seen we have seen employers call meetings or send memos and tell their entire workforce you have to produce our documents. It respectively date of hire. That's illegal. We have seen employers who refused to hire persons eligible for legalization even if they have this this nice letter of this lawsuit letter and presented to the employer on the grounds that they don't have Social Security cards. So much of those problems we are litigating in will be litigated outside the law so the law is one form of protection. So we're going to have to use labor law in state and federal labor laws. We're going to have to use Title 7 again and we're going to have to be very creative because Congress really has undercut our ability as a civil rights bar to litigate these cases and we're going to have to be extremely creative and use

every weapon at our disposal to eliminate this type of discrimination. As you notice I'm wondering if you're of the same opinion as Frank on this issue. Well I agree totally with Frank as to whether labor organizations civil rights organizations should rely solely on the special counsel and the provisions and anti-discrimination. You because of their limitations in fact it's going to be important for unions and many of them are doing this already is that they're inserting into their collective bargaining agreements provisions to protect against this type of discrimination provisions that would not include various limitations that are included in the inertia. And that has been very effective. Sometimes a less costly sometimes much more efficient and quicker procedures to follow in protecting these types of rights.

And I know numerous unions around the country who are making this anti discrimination issue. One of their major bargaining issues with employers and I think that's a very very important thing for unions to do and many of them are doing it. I think at this point we should prepare ourselves for a quick. Break and see if we can encourage people to call us and join us for the next half hour of this discussion. Once again to call us in our studios here in Los Angeles. Call collect at 0 8 1 8 9 8 5 5 7 3 5 That's 0 8 1 8 9 8 5 5 7 3 5. Join us in this discussion on employee discrimination and how the new immigration law will affect you when we are talking with Carlos Davis of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Francisco about ACA of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and his who skew nowness who was an attorney practicing law in Los Angeles and I will be right back after all this short break.

Thank you thank the thank the. Eh eco eg the banks above the bowing of the earth yes.

And we're back live here in the studios of KPFA kid Los Angeles. Once again if you'd like to join us in this discussion on employee discrimination you can call collect at 0 8 1 8 9 8 5 5 7 3 5. We have a one caller on the line right now and we'll begin with your calling your question. And while you're on the air. Yeah I'm an Army employer and we employ have applied a lot of illegal alien have. And I've already given some of them letter to help them with their application and copy. There Debbie it is. And there are others on the force right now that were kind of in doubt whether they will qualify or not. And we don't really know what we should be doing right now. I understand that by law we are supposed to verify a climate now but that the forms aren't out. We can indicate whether we have done that or not. So we haven't really taken any measures right

now and we're kind of in the dark as to what we should be doing. Who wants to pick that one up. This is Carlos Tevez with US immigration forms are now official the official I-9 forms are already being sent out so at least that has been taken care of. We already have some of the file official line forms in our office with regard to your question about the employees that will not qualify. Would you repeat that again please. Well there are people that we have heard that might be just recently arrived and have not been here before and we haven't asked our employers employees that aren't. We have an app for any proof yet because we haven't really known what. OK since the since the enactment of the law on November 6

1986 all employers in the United States should be doing the verification process even though the I-9 form hasn't been out there. Employers certain employers have made up their own lines based on all the information that was available to him but now they will have to then go back in if the I-9 has changed substantially from the copy they initially had. Well I probably have to re-interview all of the people that they hired since 11 686 So will you as an EE as a grower pharma owner or whatever should be doing that now. Let me just clarify that a bit. First of all on the legalization question I think it's extremely important for employers to assist her workforce in obtaining legalization if an employer request documentation in the form of a letter or some sort of documentary proof that they were employed by you for a certain period. That's excellent because it helps you and helps your workforce. Secondly in terms of verification as the NSA said there's there are no i know informers available. But you know the deadline is actually September 7th for those workers that were hired between

November 6th and the present. You don't have to verify those within 72 hours. Once a startup date comes which I understand is July 1st as it is I mean it was a June 1st the start of June 1st. It's very unclear because there's legislation in Congress and I notice that unilaterally started with July 1st in the event that say June 1st. Once June 1st starts then you have 72 hours to do the verification. Now for those workers that were hired before November 6 under no circumstances should you make a decision whether they qualify or not. You simply provide the letter. And secondly for those workers it's very important that you do not request documentation because you can continue to employ those persons even though they are they are undocumented without fear of sanctions without fear that the INS will visit you or impose some kind of fines for not having a form on file for those workers. As far as you're concerned those workers can continue in your employ without need to present anything documents and that's where a lot of the confusion comes in. And I think that

if employers do not overreact to not do more than it's required then we're going to solve a lot of discrimination problems. We don't want to be in a position of suing employers because we understand we will put them between a rock and a hard place on the one hand they're required to do certain things by the end as you know on the other hand if they go too far and discriminate then they're going to face the possibility of suits by their employees on behalf of or civil rights organizations. So so if the confusion is cleared up I think didn't players comply with the new law without overreaching and affecting in discriminating against what force you have like to ask of a color if those answers are satisfied you. Yeah I'm getting somewhere I'd I'd like to have a couple more things and I want to make one and then we'll move on OK. OK are you saying that the workers before hired before November 6. I do not need to verify. That's correct. Now to qualify a little bit this is kind of a migrant workforce. Now the word We've had them on the 4th before November 6 and then there's been a

gap of employment. You know these people work a few months during the summer and some other month during the winter and it's not a continuous. And so there there always being you know laid opon rehired maybe a month or two later. And as your question does that make any difference. That's a question that somebody that did work before November 6 but wasn't working continuously. I thank you for your call. You've asked a very important and actually a very difficult question. But first of all I don't confuse a continuous residency required requirement under legalization with a grandfathered worker protection. There's no required that meant that they be continuously employed. The only question is what happens. The only the first and most important point they had to be hired before November 7th actually so it's November 6 or before that. Then the question becomes what happens if there's some interruption after November 7th. Now it depends on the nature of the interruption.

If it's for purposes of say a sick leave of disability leave pregnancy it's some layoffs or a strike then then. That person continues to be a grandfathered worker. The most difficult question is what happens to seasonal workers. Unfortunately the INS we made various comments in various requests to address this issue chose not to address this issue and to leave it purposely ambiguous and it's very unclear what's going to happen with with seasonal workers. Our position as a civil rights organization is that the provision should be interpreted liberally so that a seasonal worker has not lost the benefit of grandfather status because he still has the anticipation of going back to the original employer and from the employer's perspective that person is not terminated. They have in the ongoing relationship and what I suggest is that you put a letter in your file or have your attorney draft a letter saying that this person has been in your employ and that you anticipate that to have this person work again after November 6 so it's

clear that that person was not terminated. Let's take our next call once again. You can call collect to join this conversation. 0 8 1 8 9 8 5 5 7 3 5 is the number to call to the next call. Hello you're on the air. Good morning. I would not I would not know this question if you're for me. Want me to come back. And I applied in Clovis California point out that's your job right. Last October now. I would call that right that I was being considered for a position but I don't get that I did forget and I. Who wants to take that one. OK let me answer that question. You refused to provide him with any identification indicating that you're either a United States citizen or that you're lawfully authorized to work and live in the United States. But that is a law and all people who are employed in the United States are seeking employment must abide by it or the employer will not hire you you have to go by it

by showing the employer any certain documents that will indicate that you are either a US citizen for example. We don't all of us carry U.S. passports but that's an example or a naturalization certificate shows that you're born in United States. If we don't have that like my son probably wouldn't and I don't then I'd have to probably show I'm a birth certificate showing that I was born the day hence and then I have a Social Security card and I want you on them and then that would take care of it. So you need to do that in order to be hired by employers. Employers should not have to ask you for any specific document they should just ask you to show you. For you to show them that you are lawfully authorized to work in United States when you are either a US citizen. I don't understand your question did you say you were hired in October. I know they took my application and they called me last night. That would I would be considered for a position right.

But I would have to show some kind of yes. At this point the law is in effect and you would have to show it. And by the way everybody has to show not just Mexican Americans and that's an important point in this law even though it's an immigration law that's a typo. It's really in a sense a labor law it's a law that's going to affect every person every employer in this country. And if you think about it it's sort of a numb precedented intrusion into the employment relationship and it's going to create even more tensions in that and it's very important that if you know the employers your question is forms to ensure that it requests evolve forms of Anglos of white Americans and black Americans so that there's no discrimination. And secondly Mr. Taylor has mentioned a kind of forms that are being requested now problems come in when you request only one of those forms for example if an employer requests citizenship proof say a passport and that employers discriminated because he's discriminating against persons who are not citizens but who are otherwise entitled to work.

So the important thing to remember is you just have to show two things. Authorization to work and identity and several kinds of whole forms can show those two prongs was to test independently or in combination just make sure they don't request more than is necessary. Thank you for your call let's go on to our next call and again remind you the number to call collect here is 0 8 1 8 9 8 5 5 7 3 5 and I want to get a call collect. It will take the next call Hello you're on the air. Hello you're on the air. Yeah I question that. If you have great order and you haven't. And you. Let me say that you have that correct. Well I didn't say that you can be discriminated against. I mean our position is that no person should suffer discrimination. What I said is did if you did not fill out an intending citizenship form and I know you didn't because one is not available from the INS on it and if you did not

file for naturalization by May 4th and I know that probably 99 percent of green card holders didn't file because it didn't know about it. It means that you're not protected under these anti-discrimination provisions of the law. It may be that other parts of the law apply. Frankly I doubt it because Title 7 does not recognize that kind of discrimination. There is a section one thousand eighty one that may or may not recognize a kind of discrimination. But the important point is it's the anti-discrimination provisions are not doing what they're meant to do. And in fact I'm not including many kinds of persons that does that happen. I'm repeating but I'm a bit of a shock right now. You should be. Have a great heart. Thank you not yet. Well you know like that like well yeah but I didn't know that you were a lawyer has that provision.

It doesn't unfortunately. Yes it's very unclear what the layer that was and labor rights and anti-discrimination protections are for green card holders because not only does the law impose these requirements but the law is very upfront and it allows an employer to actually prefer a citizen over a green card holder. And if you were to file a claim you would have to prove. And by the way is it difficult to prove that you were more qualified than the citizen. So basically we have a situation where green card holders who are in this country illegally who are legally authorized to work and who live in our midst and you know we live in our communities are just like any other person really have less rights and less protections in citizens. Let's take our next caller once again. If you want to join our conversation call collect as 0 8 1 8 9 8 5 5 7 3 5. We'll take our next call. Hello you're on the air. And I was curious about what sort of what sort of process are being how are people

being taught things are going to be changed within the next six months that they shoot for. Try to fill out ways and forms that still are available when what is being done about the people told you to come up with some other sort of station when they apply for jobs. Thanks for your call who want to take that one. Well I should tell you my name says Huisken Yunus and one of the things that has been happening in the major urban areas and I'm sure in some of the agricultural centers of California for sure is that the federations the labor federations the mall def and other organizations including church organizations are providing free. Various services counseling legal services other types of services for people

to get the information that's necessary and they're there engaged in a fairly intense program of education for the members of unions and members of churches etc.. And if people have questions they should contact their union to should contact their local church. They should contact their their county federations of labor who are putting together. They have programs in place now to provide the kind of services that you just referred to. I think there's a popular perception his that that the unions have not always been on the side of illegal immigrants in this country and. What you're telling us here is that unions in California are taking the stand in terms of educating people. Do you think there is more a more constructive role that unions could be playing in this situation. Well I think that some of the criticism of unions in the past has been valid. Fortunately

however because they they're largely democratic institutions. They realize that in order to serve the people who are their members they need to open up and begin to provide these types of services. And I've seen in various parts of the country unions play a very instrumental role in establishing programs in assisting the various groups in their work and I think that they've responded in a way that in the way that they should respond in terms of serving their members in this situation. Before we move on to our next call a question that has come up in my mind is if I'm a person who believes I've been discriminated against do well is there any burden on my part to make that make that case to prove that I mean. Do I have to show that this employer knowingly intentionally discriminated against me. How does that come up.

Well that's been a source of great debate over the last few months as to what the standards are going to be when someone says I believe I've been discriminated against. What exactly do they have to prove aside from making a complaint within 180 days from the date that the act occurred. And that's important for people to realize that they have have only 180 days from the date that the alleged discrimination discriminatory act occurred. They then have to show either one that the employer intentionally discriminated against them. Or what some people believe should be the standard that a a pattern or practice of the employer from for example an employment policy that that employment policy has a discriminatory impact regardless of whether or not the policy was instituted for intentionally to discriminate. For instance you might have something that's neutral on

its face where an employer says we are going to fire people who do not have valid Social Security cards and even though that may not be implemented intentionally to discriminate against Mexican-Americans for instance or against immigrant workers it may actually have the effect of discriminating against them. And there's a big argument over whether you have to prove intentional discrimination. Let's take a call because we've got a couple people on the line. Once again if you want to call collect at 0 8 1 8 9 8 5 5 7 3 5 we'll take our first call. Well you're on the air. My name is John Hamre landscape contractor. I have in the past. Illegal aliens as employees. Yeah that's been just this year. I say good applicants show me a document. To expect letter from usually a private organization that's in there. Immigration you know and the businesses that were I guess says that. So I'm sorry you know except

for the name of the applicant has applied for amnesty and under the provisions of the Act that are you know their father waiting for the thing to go through. Can I use that and I know I documentation. No you can use it as a nine documentation though all those are the kind of letters that should be accepted by an employer because that individual has gone to a qualified designated entity or some momentary agency where they're applying for. For legalization but you what you've got to do also there's a special rule that permits employers to hire individuals who are here in this country on documented through September the 1st whether that September 1st date will be extended or not. We don't know yet. But you should know 1987 September 1st 1907 the the technical date when employer sanctions going into effect is June 1st but they've extended that with a special rule it goes on till September the 1st and that's it. Then like I was like before you can say

you have somebody who wants to work for you then what you've got to do is ask that person two questions under the special rule. And yes that person do you have do you believe you are eligible to apply for legalization under the Immigration Reform Act and the person says yes. Then you ask another question do you intend to apply for work authorization from the U.S. Immigration Service. The person answers yes then the INS is saying that person is authorized to work in United States until September the 1st 1907. But after that date unless it changes that person has to show you some documentation indicating that the person is authorized to work here in the United States with an applicant for a job and wait to have them here. I'll be working on that. That's another ambiguous part of this whole thing. The people that might be waiting after September the first would not be able to provide you with the proper documentation that's something that's going to have to be addressed. Thanks for your call us going to our next call. Hello you're on the air. Yes I'm calling from Canada and I'm currently in the

process of applying for an immigrant visa via the and by program which was part of the immigration reform bill that was in the member Rand if and when I receive my visa and I go to the port of entry to enter the United States and receive my green card. Is there anything further that I will have to do concerning naturalization or whatever to prevent any problems seeking employment for a lot of documentation be taken. That's OK I'm not sure about that. MP 5 I'm not sure what that's all about preference this 10000 that were offered worldwide. OK OK. I believe that when you enter the United States as a lawful permanent resident you again also when that form is available will have to follow intent to become United States citizen old in order to be covered under some of these anti-discrimination provisions on the reform act. But we as of now the only thing I've learned about it is they are revising

the old form making it a lot simpler but it is not out the intent to become a United States citizen former members that know the old number I might as well not give it to you because you're not going to be using it. They're trying to get a new form printed and prepared. So I likely will have to do something. Yes and it's not right you know if it's not already printed and being used at the time you actually are given your lawful permanent residency then you can have to do it afterwards. I think we have time for one more call let's take our next call. Hello you're on the air. Yeah just recently I'm kind of you know private confined to a green card holders I'm absolutely clear that none of them know anything about this application. This rocker Bama. I just checked this got one yesterday and he said oh no they're going to do with me. So I'm amazed that you know that they have six months to how would you again give the bank that that looks like it. I've got people who've got a green card can't get 20 you know. Right.

Remember this application is in order to be protected in order for you to have a right to sue an employer. It's not for any benefit of the lot except for the benefit of being protected from discrimination. So if the data is six months from which from the date that the person was eligible for naturalization from that date they have to file an application they have to file an intending citizenship form which it as we said is not yet available. And in addition an application for naturalization. Now what I'm saying is that most green green card holders on November 7th. Everyone had a green card and that they had six months to apply. Now those six months of lapse now anyone else who subsequently obtained the legal status of a green card holder or a temporary resident a refugee or a society they will have six months from the date of that status of being granted that status situation or they have a green card every didn't even know about it. Six months is gone the forms are even available.

I mean what's this I don't know. What about protection. Well that at this point that's what the law says they can no longer apply in Iraq. And I caution you that there will probably be less litigation I mean someone is going to raise due process claims without litigation will be successful or not. We can definitely argue that people never receive notice that forms are not a valid one that they're from the six month period should not be allowed. And we are quickly approaching the time in which we have to wind up our conversation here on this issue of employee discrimination. So I would like to go around our table and ask each of our guests to make a concluding remark about how you see the situation and what you would advise people to do if they have not had all of their answers and obviously we couldn't answer everyone's question about this very complicated provisions of the new law. A concluding statement from each of you gentlemen what would you recommend people to do with the stage. Yesterday's Well with regard to the you know the underlying purpose of the section is to the anti-discrimination section

is to redress re discrimination caused by the desire employers to avoid the sanctions imposed by Erica by refusing to hire or by firing individuals who appear foreign or authorized to work in our states. But there are some problems involved. Things need to be addressed clarified the finance the school said. And I hope that soon this these type of things will be addressed by our people in one ass or Congress. It's just you know it is yeah. Some of the examples of discriminatory conduct that have occurred in the last few months include situations where as a result of a strike situation at a certain employer employers after the strike will say well look even though you were a grandfathered employee you're no longer a grandfathered employee because there was a break in your status as an employee by virtue of you being on strike. We've seen that situation arise the way we have dealt with that aside from our belief that that's a violation of the

anti-discrimination provisions of the law and also a very clear and obvious violation of other federal labor laws. Namely the National Labor Relations Act. Is is too is to immediately on behalf of unions or unions themselves to assert those those protections with employers and we've been able to to to put off or prevent any kind of unlawful conduct as long as it's done quickly and that these issues are raised. But I think from not from a labor union perspective unions are are playing a very important role in that and it's important for people to go to their unions in the in the situations and also to for unions to consider and encourage the raising of these types of issues in collective bargaining agreements so that you don't have to rely on some of the limitations in the law. Francisco Garcia briefly a concluding statement is let me just reiterate the point is this is not really an

amnesty law. The centerpiece of this legislation is in the employment context is the sanctions provisions. Our organization is opposed sanctions historically I think our long range goal is to be eliminate to repeal employer sanctions people should should be able to document a discriminatory effective sanctions. Businesses here complain about the cost of their to their business about sanctions and frankly sanctions means that we've moved our society on the level of South Africa for example we have to carry a pass to work and sanctions ultimately would mean that many people will be denied the most basic right the right to work and to feed their families if they're not authorized to work. Thank you very much. Went to school got to see it of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. He says Q nowness of the Taylor Roth and Bush law firm in Los Angeles and Carlos Diaz of the Immigration and Naturalization Service thank you for talking with us this concludes our program on employee discrimination. The second in a series of three radio programs on the new immigration law known as Simpson Verde you know this program is a production of K SJP FM and if your

building were in Fresno California broadcasting from the studios of KPFA FM in Los Angeles our executive director is a little more out of this. Our executive producer is someone else both the producer and host for this program has been Richard Gonzales our associate producer is Richard Muller a research consultant is one of our sound technician is Carlos Raven are set up engineers are Steve Barker and Sylvester rivers with facilities provided by B.B. 80 productions funds for this program are provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The Ford Foundation and the member stations of National Public Radio. This is NPR National Public Radio.